Talk:Dion Fortune/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) 03:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a fascinating article and I look forward to reviewing it. I'll say from the get-go that I may well take the full seven days to complete it. The subject is close enough to my wheelhouse to feel confident that I can review it, but unfamiliar enough that I want to take my time. I may leave comments here as I go or post them all at once. Thanks in advance for your patience. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking this on, Rhododendrites! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI sorry for the delay. Should have it up in the next couple days. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries; there's no time limit from my perspective. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Any news about the GAN, Rhododendrites? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So sorry! In hindsight, it was bad timing to volunteer for the review. I took some notes on paper and will finish/post on the long plane ride I have on Tuesday. Sorry again and thanks for your patience. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting article, and I was glad to have cause to learn about the subject. Apologies again for the delay in posting this.

Overall, the article is verifiable, sources are cited, the sources look to be reliable, coverage is broad, and not seeing any big issues with style. The primary issue -- and the subject of most of the following comments -- has to do with organization and clarity (primarily connected to organization).


 * Especially the biography section, but to some extent throughout, the section headings seem like they were inserted after the text was written, and named according to what looked to be in that set of paragraphs (instead of organizing the content around the sections, either beforehand or afterwards). That's sort of abstract, so let me give you an example. The section "Psychotherapy and esotericism" begins "To recover from this experience..." and goes right into Freud, Adler, and Jung. "This" refers back to the events at the end of the previous section. While obviously every section doesn't need a recap, wording it like "To recover from her experience at Studley" makes the change from one subsection to the next clearer.
 * I've added your proposed wording to the beginning of the "Psychotherapy and esotericism" section, which I think makes a good improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The sections (of the biography) also seem to be labeled according to years, but don't actually stay within those years, and what looks at first to be a fairly straightforward loose chronology turns out to jump back and forth quite a bit. This became most apparent to me while reading the 1913-23 section. Its second paragraph ends with a 1925 publication (outside the time frame). The "experience" mentioned in the same paragraph, just after the 1925 publication is thus unclear as to where it fits in (i.e. after 1925, despite the heading?). We find out that Moriarty died, then Stafford-Allen won over most (or all) of his followers, and then it seems like Fortune moved on to Alpha et Omega. But looking at the dates, the events of that paragraph actually precede (based on dates given) almost anything else in the section. In The Theosophical Society and the Community of the Inner Light section, Krishnamurti leaving Theosophy (1929) comes early in the section, then goes back to 1927 and 1928 for the rest of the section. A strict chronology isn't a necessity, of course -- the issue is that there's not another organizational scheme to hold onto other than chronology, which makes it confusing when finding out the sequence took place in a different order than assumed.
 * You raise a fair point. I've tried to combine a generally chronological outline of her life while at the same time keeping things thematically connected in paragraphs (for instance, where she was involved in both Moriarty's group and the Alpha et Omega simultaneously, I have discussed each in their own paragraphs, rather than jumping back and forward between them). However, in response to the concerns raised I have made a few alterations, by changing the dates of the second and third sub-sections and moving a sentence from the former into the latter. It's not a perfect solution, but hopefully is better than what we had before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of content in the biography section that seems like it should be under Belief and teachings. Many aspects of her writings, influences, and even details of her beliefs/practices don't come up in the Beliefs section. For example, the inspirational vs. automatic mediumship explained in the 1923-26 section. And other things that seem important to her beliefs, like Moriarty and Atlantis, aren't mentioned in that section.
 * I see your point, and again I think that this is a different one to juggle. On the one side I do think that a section devoted exclusively to her beliefs and teachings is useful, while on the other the development of her beliefs are so integral to her biographical story that many of them do require mention in the biographical sections of the article too. As it is I tend to favour leaving things in place as they are but I am more than happy to discuss this further if you like. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this requires a major restructuring, but I do think that, regardless of what is also covered in the biography, if the article is going to have a beliefs and teachings section it should include those things that the biography indicates are important to her beliefs and teachings, no? For example, it stands out that e.g. Cosmic Doctrine isn't mentioned at all, nor Moriarty. On the other hand, the Christian Science content in the Early Life section is a good example of something that seems intended for a beliefs section, even invoking expert opinion in the text. Later it says her beliefs were informed by it, so it makes sense to mention that there are conflicting accounts of where that influence came from -- but the Early Life section doesn't come with the context to make that meaningful and emphasizing it there makes the following sentence about Atlantis seem like it must be connected. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Because there's a lot of jargony terms, names, organizations, and events throughout, it seems like perhaps the Beliefs section would be helpful to have before the biography, to put more of it in context without going off on tangents.
 * One of my concerns about doing this would be that it would be very unusual to have a Wikipedia article structured this way. Indeed, I am not aware of a single biographical article on the encyclopaedia that places the beliefs/teachings/thought section before that of the biographical information. It would make this article very atypical. Moreover, given that her beliefs and teachings developed out of her life experience, I do think it more appropriate to have that biographical material positioned first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A fair point. Just seemed like a relatively straightforward way to contextualize the esoteric ideas up front, but it's certainly not the only way, and in fact I think modifications based on the other bulletpoints above might render the rationale for the swap moot. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A few other things:
 * The separate styles in the bibliography seems odd (table for fiction, list for non-fiction).
 * A very good point. I've formatted the Fiction table so that it looks the same way as the Non-Fiction one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the external links seem subpar
 * Good point. I've removed most of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [will probably add some other more minor things to this -- I took a lot of notes, but some are too minor to mention, some too particular for anything short of FAC, and others are easy enough for me to fix myself rather than type out :) ] &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that I've responded to everything, Rhododendrites. Do let me know if you had any further thoughts/disagreed with me on any of the pre-existing points. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've made some copyedits myself and have some additional notes here. Don't worry, there aren't more to come, and I fully appreciate that some of the things I'm asking are more fit for FA than GA, so just tell me if there's something that would take a lot of time and/or might be asking too much. These are all more specific than the big picture items above. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rhododendrites. I hadn't really planned on taking this one to FAR any time soon, in part because I'm not sure that enough academic and/or otherwise scholarly studies of Fortune and her beliefs yet exist to allow it to become 'truly' FA quality. This sparsity of good quality sources is a real drawback for this article, in my opinion. For instance, I feel that it is preventing the "Beliefs" section from being properly expanded to a quality that would be needed at FA. Nevertheless I should be able to acquiesce to all of the comments that you have made below. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Regarding the primary image, assuming it was published prior to her death, it should be in the public domain (pre-1946), no? Not a big deal, since it's a valid fair use rationale.
 * I'm not sure that it was actually published prior to her death, which would likely raise problems for labelling it as being in the public domain. It is perhaps something to look into in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * says the Community was renamed the Fraternity, but later it says the Fraternity was "a sector" with a particular concern. Am I misunderstanding?


 * Early life
 * clarify it was her grandparents in the steel industry, not her immediate family (at least that's how I understand it). i.e. "...the Firths were a.." I would presume is talking about her parents, so it's confusing when we find out her father is a lawyer-hydropath.
 * To be honest, I'm not entirely clear on this issue myself. I presume that the steelworks was a family-owned firm, so that her father presumably had some involvement from it — and financially benefited from it — but was perhaps not involved in the day-to-day management, hence his ability to undertake other business ventures. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * seems like Christian Science is the only bit we [sort of] know about her mother. maybe move that up with her father (before "little is known about Fortune's time in Wales...".
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "ideal for girls with psychological problems" - but other than saying she had visions (granted...), there's been no talk of psychological problems
 * As I understand the biographical studies of Fortune that this article is based on, there is insufficient information about Fortune's early life to determine what her psychological problems were (indeed, if she had any at all). However, the biographers did highlight that the Studley Agricultural College was known as a place to send psychologically disturbed women, which would imply that that might have been the reason why Fortune was sent there. At present it seems that we just don't know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * See above regarding beliefs vs. bio in general, but if Christian Science and the early vision of Atlantis are to be brought up here, maybe they should just be preceded with something like "Some of her experiences early in life may have influenced her beliefs down the road" or 'she reported spiritual experiences early in life..."
 * Psychotherapy and esotericism
 * "likely run" should be supported by a citation
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Glastonbury and The Cosmic Doctrine
 * "Secret Chiefs" particular to these Masters, or just another name for the same concept (if the latter, maybe better up higher)?
 * As I understand it, "Secret Chiefs" is just a synonym for "Ascended Masters". Both derive from Blavatskian Theosophy. I'll add mention of the former term at a higher juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * is the "mediumship between 1923 and 1925" the same mediumship between 1923-25 mentioned in the previous paragraph?
 * From my understanding of the sources, I believe that they are separate. Most of the mediumship discussed in this section took place in Glastonbury, that mentioned in the "between 1923 and 1925" sentence took place in Letchworth. I'll add the word "additional" into that latter sentence to try and make this clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "formal occult group" - was there a name?
 * Unfortunately if it had a name it is not specified in any of the available reliable sources. Hopefully there will be further research published in future that will reveal details such as this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The Theosophical Society and the Community of the Inner Light
 * Some issues with chronology and section headings. This section goes into 1930 -- doesn't seem necessary to do here. Also seemingly unnecessary chronological break: Assuming Krishnamurti's break with Theosophy is talking about the events of 1929, it doesn't seem like there's a reason for it to appear prior to talking about what happened in 1927.
 * I've renamed the section slightly so that the date range covers 1930. I appreciate that this section jumps back and forth a little here, but I have tried to combine something of a thematic organisation as well as a chronological one. This section for instance deals with Fortune's relationship with the Theosophical Society, her marriage, and her book publications. All of these things were occurring at the same time, and I feel that jumping between them from sentence to sentence would just be distracting for the reader, hence why I have created thematic paragraphs in this section rather than making it explicitly chronological. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "cautious about them ... it was hostile to my race" - Which are the "them"/"it" referring to? Lodge, other members, or the Himalayan Masters?
 * I believe that she is referring to the Himalayan Masters and the current of philosophy that they (allegedly) promote. I've reworded this sentence to deal with the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * briefly mentions the key organization (FotIL) is concerned with "Lesser Mysteries" but that's never explained.
 * I've added an explanatory sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Later life
 * Tranchall-Hayes - first time mentioning this mentor. maybe good idea to mention with Alpha et Omega
 * Ah, I see the issue. Tranchall-Hayes and Maiya Curtis-Webb are one and the same, she simply changed her name in later life. I've made an edit to the prose to make this clearer.
 * "Alpha et Omega" in some places and "Alpha and Omega" in others -- maybe better to be consistent?
 * We appear to use "Alpha et Omega" at the Wikipedia article on the subject, so I shall standardise all examples to that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Greater Mystery" - only mention of this term
 * The sentence I added should now explain this before it is introduced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Novels
 * Talks about each of the occult books connecting to one of the Sephirah, but omits The Demon Lover.
 * I've double-checked the source, and it also omits The Demon Lover on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the descriptions of the novels could flow better. It's not clear why Demon Lover and Winged Bull are in on paragraph and Goat-Foot God and Sea Priestess are in the other, for example. I think that ideally, if she was well known for these books each could have its own stand-alone paragraph... but this bulletpoint is more appropriate for FA than GA.
 * seems odd that the block quote says Sea Priestess and Moon Magic are where she "achieves greatness" but the same person said Goat-Foot God is "the finest occult novel ever written".
 * I agree that it is a little self-contradictory, but it is what the source material states. Do you think that there should be an alteration to this article on the basis of it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "promotion challenger" would mean -- is this what's intended?
 * I've double checked the original source and this is a correct quote. However, in truth I am not sure what the term "promotion challenger" means either. That being the case, I'd be inclined to just leave it as is but I'm happy to talk about it further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Belief and teachings
 * "No evidence...'Pagan'" - Unclear why we'd be talking about it then, or why it's in the title of the subsection. Only other mention in the section is later when it seems to contradict via "fully embraced the idea of a modern Paganism reviving...".
 * This section deals with the fact that while Fortune may never have self-described as a "Pagan", she clearly adopted aspects of pre-Christian religion into her belief systems and promoted modern Pagan ideas. So there is a juxtaposition between what she actually believed and practiced and how she described herself here. Do you feel that there are prose edits that can be made to this section to make it clearer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * race is a dominant enough theme here that perhaps it could sustain its own subsection (probably down the line, if the beliefs section is fleshed out a bit more). To a lesser extent the same is true of sex under the magic subheading (although it's more clearly connected to that section).
 * I've renamed this whole section as "Religion and race", which is probably a better summary of its contents than "Christianity and Paganism". If further material on Fortune's attitude toward race see publication then I would certainly be happy to consider splitting it off as a separate section but at present I feel that I have exhausted these particular sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Personality and personal life
 * Seems to turn into a list of trivia towards the end.
 * You're right. I'm removing the comment that she had no interest in travel, as that doesn't really seem very important. I'm also moving her nickname to another part of this section and attempting to blend it more effectively into the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing these. There are, of course, a few things unresolved, but as you've pointed out, it's unclear to what extent they can all be resolved. Regardless, at this point I have no hesitations passing it. Nice job on it. Sorry again to be so slow to get started. I'll go ahead and list it now. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And a happy Samhain to you, btw :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 00:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Rhododendrites . I'm still having a little trouble with regard to the precise nature of the relationship between the Community of the Inner Light and the Fraternity of the Inner Light, for the sources available aren't particularly clear on this issue, but I will hopefully resolve that additional point in future. Best! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)